09-30-11 2 - Drone Strikes Again, with Jeremy Scahill - Countdown with Keith Olbermann

[slipslidingaway]

Run time: 08:43 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jTQpVrMHfE   Posted on YouTube: October 01, 2011 By YouTube Member: MiniRtist Views on YouTube: 20   Posted on DU: October 01, 2011 By DU Member: slipslidingaway Views on DU: 3958

 

[sabrina 1]

1. 'A principle is only a principle if you hold it, when the person you like

is in power'. Perfectly stated by Jeremy Scahill, one of the few people who still has actual principles.

Excellent run down on Al Awlaqi who was nothing more than a propagandist for extremists, but in no way, as he says, even close to being a leader of Al Queda.

'Today was a tragic day for the American justice system, because of the lack of outrage' at something, as he correctly points out, liberals would have been screaming about if Bush did it.

And he is also right about these killings creating more terrorists. Family members and friends of the victims, especially all the innocents killed in Pakistan and Yemen and Afghanistan by those monstrous drones, now and for generations, will want revenge. Just as Americans, many of them, wanted revenge for 9/11.

I wish there more Jeremy Scahills.

No surprise that Perry would cheer for an execution though. He's the king of executions these days. Getting his approval, that alone should worry Democrats.

[slipslidingaway]

17. He made another important point, many Dems are now accepting ideas ...

they would have rallied against if this were done under a Republican president.

Another interview from yesterday where Scahill also mentions that Al-Awlaki condemned the 9/11 attacks and he became more radicalized after the Iraq invasion.

Two links, same interview.

Jeremy Scahill: 'Sad Day for America'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTBb63rSj6M

http://army.iwantinfonow.com/2011/09/30/jeremy_scahill_sad_day_for_america/

"Aside from the glaring legal concerns of the US government assassinating one of its own citizens without any means of due process, we have to examine some of the other claims that have been made about Anwar Al-Awlaki and his role in Al Qaeda. In the past, the government has used the States Secrets privilege to hide any real evidence they may have about Awlaki’s operational role. So why now, is it being treated as fact? ..."

[sabrina 1]

26. Yes, I am shocked at anyone on the Left supporting this now

because I remember the outrage on the Left when Bush gave himself the powers to do this.

At least back then, there was some hope of ending these policies, we still had the option to elect Democrats. Now all that hope is gone.

Al Awlaqi did condemn 9/11 but he also knew two of the 9/11 hijackers yet was never arrested as others who were simply Muslims were.

Our Constitution doesn't work anymore. That's what those who are arguing that we cannot apply the rule of law when we feel threatened. What a sad day for America indeed.

[slipslidingaway]

29. Yes the outrage is mostly gone. n/t

[Blue State Bandit]

2. I'm sorry, but when you take up the role of Goebbels...

for a foreign army, you are no longer and American citizen. I dare anyone who decides my view is offensive to them, to watch his tapes and count how many times he told foreigners to indiscriminately kill American civilians as well as those from other countries.

And I wouldn't be too broken hearted if it was Rush Limbaugh in that gun camera video either.

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. The Supreme Court has decided in several cases that advocating violence is protected speech

Also, we are a nation of laws. We are not governed by your gut instinct nor are we governed by a King with the divine right of life or death dispensed at the wave of his imperial hand.

Cheers!

[Blue State Bandit]

7. I can't disagree more.

His protection by the US Constitution no longer existed when he took a strategic role for a foreign power prosecuting a war against the US.

This is not a protest leader with a megaphone and an internet up-link on Wall Street. He is protected by our Constitution, and even -I would argue- honored in the Declaration of Independence.

al-Aulaqi is not.

[Vinnie From Indy]

8. I have always found that those defending this action that use

phrases like "His protection by the US Constitution no longer existed when he took a strategic role for a foreign power prosecuting a war against the US" appear to be completely incapable of asking the next logical question to that notion. If al-awaki was such an obvious threat to America that a child could see it, why was he never charged with a crime in theh US. Surely, if this man was such an obvious clear and present danger an indictment would have been handed down within seconds of the evidence being presented to a grand jury.

Many of you are turning your back on the notion that our nation is a nation of laws. We were founded on the very notion that we reject the right of a sovereign to kill at his pleasure without judicial review. I cannot think of a more fundamental freedom or concern of our founding fathers. Why so many of you want to reject such a notion is grotesque and terribly frightening.

[Blue State Bandit]

9. When attempting to arrest such a person for treason and sedition...

...does not include sending hundreds or thousands of US troops to there death at the hands of his foreign military cohorts, or presents a clearly vocalized threat of violent military action against random US citizens, particularly employing mass casualty tactics, if action is not taken to disrupt, then I'd be all for living up to our high standards.

When our "Nation of Laws", starts acting like it again... kool. But until then, I won't be hiding under a false sense of super-morality from the Frankensteins created by our bastardized / dysfunctional judicial, political, and economical system.

Tell me how far you get using that argument with the Tea Partiers when they bring there guns to the next mass demonstration against the corporatocracy that has already shredded the constitution that -I'm sure- we both adore. They will probably be dropping everything after "...no longer existed..." and justify it by proclaiming that you talk funny, or because you're a liberal.

Faith will not save anyone my friend. Not them: not us. blind faith least of all.

[Xicano]

11. "His protection by the US Constitution no longer existed"

I'll go along with that when you cite under what law that is, and, what due process of this law was given to excommunicate him as a constitutionally protected citizen.

[JDPriestly]

13. If you are right about al Aulaqi (and I don't know that much about

this person), then he could easily be convicted under American law.

Why go to this extra-Constitutional extreme? What was the point?

Doesn't Obama have confidence in our legal system? Is he afraid of the security risk that a terrorist trial would pose? We have had other trials and there has been no serious problem.

Remember the mob lynchings of African-Americans without trials in the South. They were wrong even in cases in which the accused was very guilty. The guilt of the accused is not the issue. The establishment of a precedent condoning the disregard for the rule of law is the issue.

[MNBrewer]

15. Even IF he's no longer protected by the Constitution (which I debate)

We are still bound by it.

[sabrina 1]

31. Which foreign power did he represent?

[JDPriestly]

12. If this guy was taking the role of Goebbels and inciting terrorism

then, we can assume that, upon reviewing the evidence, and American jury would have convicted him.

That is the American way. There can be no compromise on this.

Now that Obama and the Republicans have embraced this total disregard of the guarantees of the US Constitution for the rights of the accused, where do killings of political dissidents and opponents of the American government end?

Is this the beginning of the end of our democracy and our civil rights? This is institutional and intentional violation of our Constitution. Where will this end?

I do not see this ending well, not at all.

But then I remember the shootings at Kent State. That did not end well either.

[MNBrewer]

19. None of those very good questions even come up for thoughtful analysis, because of

"USA!!! USA!!! USA!!! USA!!!"

"Obama got his man! WOO HOO! Rock ON!"

People would rather join in with the us vs. them vengeance machine.

[MNBrewer]

16. 1. what foreign army?

2. under what law did Awlaki forfeit his citizenship by becoming Goebbels?

[MNBrewer]

18. Did you watch the video?

[sabrina 1]

28. When you ignore the Constitutional rights of a citizen of the US

just because he has been accused of a crime and because you are personally outraged, you chip away at the Constitution and do more harm to this country than any terrorist could dream of. He could not destroy this country, the most any terrorist can do to a country is to damage some property and kill some people, which is devastating and has happened to every country in the world, but it doesn't destroy a country.

But when the actions of terrorists cause people to abandon the rule of law, to throw out the Constitution, then far more damage has been done than even they had hoped to do.

At least when Bush was violating the Constitution this way, there was hope that we could fix it, by electing Democrats. Democrats were outraged when Bush did this.

Now all that hope is gone as the Left joins the Right in supporting what they so vehemently opposed when Bush did it.

It is a sad day for the country, Scahill is right.

Let me ask you. If Perry the Executioner, who predictably supported THIS execution, should win the next election and continue these Bush policies, will you still support them? Will you still claim that there is no need for a trial to determine whether or not someone is a citizen of the US?

What a dangerous precedent this has set for this country

[Vinnie From Indy]

3. A cynic might even offer that BushCo was perfectly fine with Obama becoming President

A very strong argument can be made that not only has Pres. Obama governed in the service of the same elite that GW Bush did, he has also given them every bit of cover they would ever need in regard to being prosecuted for their crimes. Obama is actually the perfect foil for future prosecutions as so many Democrats are compelled to support him on this extra-judicial killing. Quite simply, Obama, it could be argued was given/allowed to win the Presidency for precisely this reason. Pres. Obama has solidified and made bi-partisan the dismantling of the Constitution and the implementation of a global crime spree. BushCo will never be prosecuted after this action by Obama. At least not in our lifetimes.

But that would only be a cynic that would ever bring that up in polite company.

[emilyg]

6. +1

[stockholmer]

14. +1000, you speak the truth

[slipslidingaway]

20. Watching the corporate media, what subjects they discuss and who they allow ...

into the conversation can be very revealing. Only the crazy talked about investigations of BushCo, acceptable candidates did not.

:(

The Obama DOJ has used "state secrets" to shield Bush officials from crimes and now to block a lawsuit to stop this targeted killing without due process.

[chill_wind]

5. Scahill makes all good points.

K & R.

ETA Perry was sure down with that.

[slipslidingaway]

21. Yes he does, guess in the future we'll have to trust Perry, Romney etc.

when they do something similar.

[sabrina 1]

32. Lol, no we will return to the same level of outrage

we displayed when Bush was doing this. Apparently it was never about what it was supposed to be about. Bush was a Republican, Obama is a Democrat. Remember this? IOKIYAR! Just change the last letter and we appear to have the core principles of the New Democrats.

This has been very, very enlightening. I would like to know now what ARE the core principles of this party? If it wasn't okay for Bush to do, why can those who now support Bush's policies, not explain the difference when a Democrat does it? The only response seems to be the exact same arguments made by Republicans when Bush was doing it. Or insults, which as everyone knows, means there is no credible argument in their favor.

I want to know if we owe Bush an apology and if those who have now adopted his policies will be honest enough to make such an apology.

[EFerrari]

10. That segment was damn near perfect. n/t

[slipslidingaway]

22. Watch this one as well ...

Jeremy Scahill: 'Sad Day for America'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTBb63rSj6M

12 minutes

[EFerrari]

23. Thank you!

[chill_wind]

25. Thank you! That one too.

[fascisthunter]

24. well, I hope this video changes some minds

everyday one more slippery slope surrounds us all... this wasn't just an attack on a terrorist, this is an attack on the laws that protect us from government officials who play judge and jury. The naivete that this will never be used against an innocent is the same naivete we have seen other countries display before the wrong person was placed into power. Historical fact...

[slipslidingaway]

27. Most likely not but maybe a few will at least consider some of the points he made. nt

[chill_wind]

30. And if Olbermann were still on MSNBC

a lot more Americans would have heard that last night, as a counterweight to all the other typical rush and rah.

At a minimum, like Scahill says, it seems like the dead guy's bona fidas in terms of rank and truly "operational" might have gotten a little overinflated along the way for media purposes. We'll just have to take everyone's word, because it's not like there was ever going to be a U.S. trial to inform us.

Carol J. Williams, Times Staff Writer
September 30, 2011, 10:38 p.m.

The killing of two Americans by a U.S. drone strike in Yemen has reignited a debate about whether targeting U.S. citizens — even terrorists — is legal under the rules of war or constitutes an extrajudicial execution that ignores their rights.

The Obama administration contends that U.S.-born radical cleric Anwar Awlaki was a legitimate target because he played an "operational" role in Al Qaeda, alleging that, among other plots, he directed a 2009 Christmas Day plan to blow up a Detroit-bound jetliner.

"Awlaki was the leader

of external operations for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," President Obama said Friday. "In that role, he took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans."

But some human rights advocates and legal scholars said the administration had never produced evidence to back up that claim. They said the 40-year-old cleric was an influential recruiter and motivator, but there was little evidence to directly link him to belligerent operations against the United States.

Awlaki death rekindles legal debate on targeting Americans
The slaying of two Americans renews questions about whether killing U.S. citizens is legal under rules of war or constitutes an extrajudicial execution in violation of U.S. and international law.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-awlaki-due-process-20111001,0,2070726.story